IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.22215 OF 2019(GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
MR.V S LAUTNEY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS THE THEN CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL KUSTAGI, R/O HOUSE NO.99 SECTOR NO.63, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT-587101 (BY SRI.NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP BY ITS SECRETARY M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-12 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 4. MR MOHAMMAD BURAN S/O KHAJA HUSSSAIN R/O ADAVIRAYA COLONY KUSTAGI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.11.2018 PASSED BY THE R-3 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE-28(B) OF KCS (CCA) FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR DISCHARGE OF PETITIONER FROM THE SAID DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT: 24.11.18 VIDE ANNX-A. CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.11.2018 passed on an application under Rule 28(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge from the disciplinary proceedings has been rejected.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that a complaint was filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner in which allegations were made that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of funds. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act, 1984 was held. The Karnataka Lokayuktha made a recommendation on 03.10.2015 for holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and another for misconduct under Rule 3(1) (i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The disciplinary authority ordered a joint departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer. However, the enquiry officer allowed examination of a stranger namely, Sri.Ravi Prakash as PW-1, though the original complainant of the case was present in the court hall. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 for his discharge from the disciplinary proceedings. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.11.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the enquiry officer has permitted enquiry of a stranger in the department enquiry, the departmental enquiry is vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the departmental proceedings.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The enquiry officer has held that the man, who was examined is a stranger to the proceedings but he was examined as witness in the enquiry proceedings. It has further been held that despite therebeing opportunity to the petitioner and his advocate, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witness. Thereafter, this application has been filed. Evidentiary value of the witness examined by the enquiry officer may be irrelevant. However, that by itself does not entitle the petitioner to be discharged from the departmental proceedings, which has been initiated on him on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-